Quote:
Originally Posted by Formendacil
I think the first thing to be considered here is your division between "history vs. culture" or "literary history vs. history." To make a very basic grammatical point, "literary history" is still history--albeit that noun is modified by a focus on literature. Similarly, what is about culture that strikes you as ahistorical? Personally, I don't think it is--on the contrary, what is history about if it can't include culture.
|
I could probably have phrased my orginal post better.
You are right that culture is an important part of history and we have studied the great artists; Da Vinci, the ancient Greek and Roman writers,
The Prince. So perhaps the better question would have been; Has Tolkien achieved the same level of importance as say
The Illiad or The Last Supper have reached that LotR is a important facet of the history of the modern world?
Quote:
|
Basically, I'm just getting onto a bit of a soapbox here about the fact that "history" is more than just politics and wars--even when leavened by the all-powerful modern favourite, economics. History should not relegate art and philosophy and culture to some spin-off discipline like "Art History" or "History of Philosophy" (though such courses may be highly useful in the disciplines of Art or Philosophy), but needs to keep them at hand.
|
Indeed the current trend seems to be splitting the subjects into so many different divisions that it becomes impossible for many students to even consider that subjects are interconnected. Last semester I meet with stares of disbelief when my essay on Henry VIII contained research into frontal lobe injuries. My European History teacher is very good about keeping it all connected though.